1 APHC010087242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5668/2026 Between: 1. RANGALA DURGA PRASADA REDDY, S/O SRI RANGALA APPALA REDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND PETROL BUNK STREET, KORUKOLLU VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-AP522237. 2. THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL CUM SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA- AP-533001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA-AP-533001. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SHO / SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, U. KOTHAPALLI POLICE STATION , KAKINADA DISTRICT- AP-533001. 5. RANGALA APPALA REDDY, ,S/O LOVAREDDY, AGE 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMARAVILLIVILLAGE, U. KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT-AP-533001. 2 6. SMT RAGALA KAMALAKSHI W/O SRI RAGALA APPALA REDDY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.5-30-1-86, GRAM PANCHAYAT STREET, AMARAVALLI VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.10.03.2026 IN I.A.NO.03 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to Case No. H/882/2025 on the file of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, Kakinada, and quash the Final Order dated 21.10.2025 passed therein as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of Certified copy of Case No. H/882/2025 on the file of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, Kakinada, and quash the Final Order dated 21.10.2025 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to restrain the Respondents, including the third respondent police, from taking any coercive steps including calling the petitioner to police station, arrest, detention, or recovery proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned Final Order dated 21.10.2025 passed in Case No. H/882/2025, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to implead the proposed respondenti.e Smt. Ragala Kamalakshi, W/o Sri Ragala Appala Reddy, major residing at Amaravalli 3 Village, U. Kothapalli Mandal, Kakinada District, as Respondent No.6 in the above W.P No. 5668 of 2026, in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMANI ANNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 4. GODAVARTI MOUNIKA The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5668/2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “ to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for records relating to Case No.H/882/2025 on the file of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, Kakinada, and quash the Final Order dated 21.10.2025 passed therein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 21.10.2025 without enquiring proper and necessary parties and without considering the application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘Act 56 of 2007’) submitted by the petitioner’s mother/ respondent No.6, who is a senior citizen. He further submits that Respondent No. 5, who is the husband of respondent No.6 not looking after the well being of his wife and his third child, who is physically and mentally unable to eke out his livelihood and has placed the burden upon the petitioner herein, without seeking any maintenance from the elder son. Without considering these aspects, the respondent No.2 has passed an impugned order abruptly, in violation of the principles of natural 5 justice and due procedure as contemplated under the Act 56 of 2007. He further submits that in view of the deficiencies committed by the respondent No.2 while passing orders, the said impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. The further case of the petitioner herein is that Respondent No.5, without seeking maintenance from his elder son, has filed a complaint against the petitioner herein, even though the petitioner is taking care of his mother/ respondent No.6, who is the wife of Respondent No. 5 along with his brother, who being the third son of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who physically challenged and unable to eke out his livelihood on his own. Further, claiming maintenance by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner leaving out the elder son, who is also enjoying the estate of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that even in view of the pending application of the respondent No.6 herein, who is also senior citizen and who also made an application before the authority concerned for adjudication, but the respondent No.2 without adjudicating the same along with the application filed by respondent No.5 since both are wife and husband, erroneously disposed of the only application of the respondent No.5 leaving the application of the respondent No.6 which is contrary to law and also the object of the scheme of the Act. He further submits that even though the said application is pending for more than five 6 months with the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 did not choose to consider the same. 6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that in view of the pending application of the respondent No.6, who also belongs to the same family, it is more appropriate that the application of respondent No.6 as well as respondent No.5 should be clubbed and to be disposed of in a comprehensive manner rather than disposing separately to render justice and to achieve the object under the scheme of the Act. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 both are husband and wife and became senior citizens and they entitled to make applications under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 for maintenance, welfare and protection of life and property before the respondent No.2 herein. It is an admitted fact that both the wife and husband made applications under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 for maintenance as well as welfare, protection of life. If that is so, the respondent No.2, for one reason or the other, disposed of the application of the respondent No.5 leaving the application of the respondent No.6, even though respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the husband and wife and claim of them against their common legal heirs/ sons who has to address their maintenance and well being of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. But the respondent No.2 did not choose to dispose of the application of the 7 respondent No.5 leaving the application of the respondent No.6 and not disposing of the said application even though Section 5(4) of the Act contemplates every application submitted by the senior citizen should be disposed of within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. In the instant case, the application submitted by the respondent No.6 is more than five months ago. Therefore, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. After perusal of material since the applicants as well as the other parties against whom the applications are made belongs to the same family, it is better and more appropriate to dispose of both the applications submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 together in a comprehensive way to achieve the object of the Act 56 of 2007. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 21.10.2025 is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i) The impugned order dated 21.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside; ii) However, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider both the applications submitted by respondent No.5 and 6 collectively and after conducting detailed enquiry and if necessary after getting evidence from all the parties concerned 8 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:12.03.2026 BSP 9 244 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5668/2026 Date:12.03.2026 BSP